Youth Risk Society Justices Or Injustices : The Pressure Of Responsibilization, Expectations And Stigma Essay

The number of people with mental illness in the criminal justice system is one of the most pressing problems facing law enforcement and corrections today (Cuellar, McReynolds, & Wasserman, 2006). The Surgeon General’s Report on Mental Health estimated that about 20% of children and adolescents in the general population have mental disorders with some degree of at least mild functional impairment (USPH, 1999). Subsequent research has found much higher rates of serious mental health problems among youth in the juvenile justice system. Among youth who have been arrested, one study found that 31% of youth had received services from the mental health system (Rosenblatt, Rosenblatt, & Biggs, 2000). Two studies of youth in juvenile detention found that between 60% and 68% met the diagnostic criteria for a mental health disorder (Teplin, Abram, McClelland, Dulcan, & Mericle, 2002; Wasserman, Ko, & McReynolds, 2004). Once youth with emotional disturbances enter the justice system, repeated arrests are common through the remainder of childhood and into adulthood. Recidivism rates for individuals with a serious mental illness are nearly double those in the general population (Baillargeon, Binswanger, Penn, Williams, & Murray, 2009; Constantine, Petrila, Andel, Givens, Becker et al., 2010). In an analysis of juvenile trajectories, youth with emotional disturbances in their late adolescent years were more likely to fall into the high arrest trajectory class and much

Research Question: Which are the main reasons why teenagers become “Juvenile Offenders” and how does Incarcerating them can help?

In Canada when a young person gets in trouble with the law, the punishment given will be in accordance with the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The Youth Criminal Justice Act was created in 2003. The main objective of this legislation is to hold youth accountable for their actions through the promotion of “rehabilitation” and “reintegration” (Youth Criminal Justice Act, 2002, S.3a(ii)). Within the Canadian court system, there is a youth court for individuals who get in trouble with the law while they are still under the age of 18 years. In Calgary, Alberta the youth courtrooms are located in the Calgary Courts Center building, which is located at 601 5th Street SW. I attended youth court on Wednesday, October 26, 2016 and Monday, October 31th. This paper will shed light on the atmosphere of the youth courtroom, analyze how the criminal justice professionals are acting within the courtroom, and discuss certain cases that went through the youth courts.

The United States sentences more juveniles to death than any other nation in the world (Justice, 2009) and our juveniles are being sentenced as young as ten years of age. These are juveniles being tried as adults, and something has to change and change fast. The younger generation is supposed to be our future leaders. How will our juveniles or the citizens of this country prevail if this continues we won’t be able to because most of our future leaders will be prisoner. (B, 2005)

Youth crime is a growing epidemic that affects most teenagers at one point in their life. There is no question in society to whether or not youths are committing crimes. It has been shown that since 1986 to 1998 violent crime committed by youth jumped approximately 120% (CITE). The most controversial debate in Canadian history would have to be about the Young Offenders Act (YOA). In 1982, Parliament passed the Young Offenders Act (YOA). Effective since 1984, the Young Offenders Act replaced the most recent version of the Juvenile Delinquents Act (JDA). The Young Offenders Act’s purpose was to shift from a social welfare approach to making youth take responsibility for their actions. It also addressed concerns that the paternalistic

Today’s juvenile court system handles most cases involving those under the age of 18-year-old. This was not always the case and the ideal of a separate court system for adults and children is only about 100 years old. When looking at the differences that set juvenile courts apart, it is important to study the history and see how it developed over time.

Young people have been a main focus in society. Since 1960 there has been an increase in youth crime which is the reason as to why there are major adult concerns (Newburn, 2013). “Government became more harsh and intrusive in dealing with young people who were seen to be a problem” (France, 2007, pg.19). Older generations perceive young people as having less morals and respect in comparison to what they did at their age (Newburn, 2013). In particular, society views the youth of today as troublemakers, lazy, untrustworthy and unreliable. There are different theories that provide an explanation between involvement in offending and different factors such as family factors and wider social factors which will be discussed below.

Referring to aspects from Goldson and Muncie’s (2006) article on “a youth justice with integrity” (pp. 99-102), the essay will argue that section 38 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) should incorporate a risk-needs responsivity model (RNR) to the sentencing structure. Moreover, this addition should replace the 2012 amendments of section 38, which incorporated deterrence and denunciation into sentencing practices (s. 38(2)(f)). This amendment has the potential to increase recidivism rates, as it does not properly address the special needs that some youth’s may have. In relation, section 38 exemplifies the proportionality of the punishment (s. 38(2)(c)), which could be potentially affected

Juveniles committing crimes is not a new issued being introduced to society; actually, it has been an issue for centuries. However, the big question is, should juveniles be tried in adult courts? Before answering, take into consideration every possible scenario that could have led them to commit the crime. For instance, were they the leader in the act? Did they participate in the crime? Was the juvenile even aware of what was taking place? Were they peer pressured? Did they have any other choice at the time? There are so many other questions we could consider when making a decision here.

When thinking of reforming the juvenile justice system one has to think; what can we do to make this better for everyone involve? There are some programs that can be implemented when trying to make a change in the juvenile system. The main thing is getting parents or the guardian more involved in the child’s whereabouts. Secondly the community where the youth will have a place to go and have something more constructive to do to keep them out of trouble. Law enforcement can get involved in giving ride along and having visits to the local jails or prisons from the youth to talk to some of the inmates. Crime in life isn’t racist at all it has a no age limit, no certain gender and no social status for most of those whom decide to partake in a criminal activity. From the beginning juveniles have been an issue with law enforcement, the question has always arisen of whom will take control without cruel and unusual punishment and assist with the rehabilitation and prevention future crime actions.

Societies tend to view the youth as the future and hope of a nation. To a certain extent, societies observe the behaviours and potential of the young people to ‘estimate’ the political and socio-economic future of a nation. When there is what societies view as a deviance from the norm when in it comes to young people – often there is what is viewed as a ‘moral panic’. I will be looking at the ‘moral panic’ of youth crime or juvenile delinquency, the role of its ‘moral

The criminal construction of youth is especially problematic for young people who are male, non-English and hang around in groups (Wilson Rose & Colvin 2010). From the construction of a criminal youth the government creates legislation to reduce the societal fear of crime, such as zero tolerance legislation designed to promote preventative policing through profiling techniques that target minor offences. One such legislation can be seen through Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 No 103 (LEPRA) (New South Wales Government 2013), section 197.1(b) where a person is issued a direction by a police officer, if the police officer believes that the behaviour constitutes intimidation or is likely to cause fear. White (2015) claims that the construction of youth as criminal and the subsequent legislation marginalises young people, especially Indigenous, and fosters antisocial behaviour and the feeling of an unjust system. Moreover, the current Neo-liberal ideology asserts that everyone is responsible for their own life path, but it ignores the structural factors that limit opportunities for many young people (Evens 2006). As such, Copeland (2008), White (2015) and Iveson (2009) claim that with the privatisation of public space and the lack of socioeconomic power of young people, creates and environment that prevent young people from transitioning into adults by labelling them as dangerous and disruptive if they make any mistakes in

The main legislation governing the youth justice system is the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which sets out the system's primary aim which is to prevent offending and re-offending by children and young people. The 1998 Act developed the Youth Justice Board and also the Youth Offending Teams which can be found in every local authority in England and Wales. It is the belief that the main aim of the youth justice system is to prevent offending and re-offending by young people and children (National Audit Office, 2010).

Beck (2000, 2006, 2007), Bauman (2000), and Standing (2011) constructed this recent concept to explain how old social classes have dissolved in importance to give way to new inequalities, inequalities in risk distribution. Beck even goes as far as calling contemporary societies ‘risk societies’ (Beck, 1992). According to Individualisation theorists, risk is becoming a part of everyday life: through work (i.e. employment flexibility, job flexibility, skill flexibility) (Standing, 2011), education (i.e. greater stress on education and training) (Mythen, 2005), consumption (i.e. risk of climate change, pollution, etc.) or even through the risk of catastrophes (i.e. incidents such as Chernobyl or 9/11) (Beck, 2001). However, through disparities in education, incomes etc., risk is also becoming unequally distributed while giving rise to new inequalities which do not fit into the old class schemas (Standing, 2011).

There are two main concepts in the literatures of the sociology of youth, which linked risk and young people together. The first concept is ‘at-risk’ and the term is often used to identify or describe young people who, due to difficulties and disadvantaged situations,